Joe Rogan Experience #2303 - Dave Smith & Douglas Murray

[Brian4Liberty]

Joe Rogan Experience #2303 - Dave Smith & Douglas Murray​

"Dave Smith is a stand-up comedian, libertarian political commentator, and podcaster. He's the host of the "Part of the Problem" podcast, as well as a co-host of the "Legion of Skanks” podcast. https://www.comicdavesmith.com

Douglas Murray is a political commentator, cultural critic, and author of numerous books, the most recent of which is "Democracies and Death Cults: Israel and the Future of Civilization."https://www.douglasmurray.net"

 

[TheTexan]

God that dude is stupid

 

[Brian4Liberty]

 

[CaptUSA]

God that dude is stupid

Are you claiming to be an expert in stupidity?? Have you ever even beeeen to Joe Rogan??

You don't seem qualified to have an opinion on this matter.

 

[TheTexan]

I still think its disgusting that noone seems to ever care about the self determination of the eastern regions of Ukraine.

It's always about NATO this, NATO that.

Ukraine's impending membership into NATO may be what triggered the war, but it was never the root cause of the war.

Putin and Lavrov have said as much, since even before the invasion

British dumbass points out how Finland and Sweden have joined NATO like he's making some kind of valid point, and noone corrects him

 

[TheTexan]

Are you claiming to be an expert in stupidity?? Have you ever even beeeen to Joe Rogan??

You don't seem qualified to have an opinion on this matter.

How do you know I'm not an expert? Are you an expert on experts? Where did you get your degree?

 

[TheTexan]

@1:14:15 Dave should know better by now. The Ukrainian people weren't fighting to "keep their country". The Ukrainian people were fighting to force the seceded eastern regions into their submission.

There's a big fuckin difference Dave

 

[Brian4Liberty]

 

[nikcers]

@1:14:15 Dave should know better by now. The Ukrainian people weren't fighting to "keep their country". The Ukrainian people were fighting to force the seceded eastern regions into their submission.

There's a big fuckin difference Dave

The eastern regions were occupied by foreign nationals and started using a foreign currency and paying taxes to a foreign nation.

That would be like if Texas during the Civil War started using the British pound and started to pay taxes to the British Empire.

This happened way before the Russian government ever "officially" annexed them.

Don't get me wrong I think we have very little interest in dumping resources into a fruitless forever war in eastern Europe.

 

[TheTexan]

The eastern regions were occupied by foreign nationals and started using a foreign currency and paying taxes to a foreign nation.

That would be like if Texas during the Civil War started using the British pound and started to pay taxes to the British Empire.

This happened way before the Russian government ever "officially" annexed them.

Don't get me wrong I think we have very little interest in dumping resources into a fruitless forever war in eastern Europe.

You've made your position on secession crystal clear already. You're against the right to secede. So I am not shocked that you don't recognize their right to secede.

If Texas wanted to separate from the US in order to join the British Empire, it is within their natural human rights to do so.

To force them to stay in the union, for any reason, is a morally reprehensible position.

 

[nikcers]

You've made your position on secession crystal clear already. You're against the right to secede. So I am not shocked that you don't recognize their right to secede.

If Texas wanted to separate from the US in order to join the British Empire, it is within their natural human rights to do so.

To force them to stay in the union, for any reason, is a morally reprehensible position.

Monarchy and self determination are mutually exclusive. You do know that tight?

 

[dannno]

The eastern regions were occupied by foreign nationals and started using a foreign currency and paying taxes to a foreign nation.

That would be like if Texas during the Civil War started using the British pound and started to pay taxes to the British Empire.

This happened way before the Russian government ever "officially" annexed them.

Don't get me wrong I think we have very little interest in dumping resources into a fruitless forever war in eastern Europe.

Ya sorry this is not correct.. I took this position into consideration for a while, and have abandoned it.

The Civil War started right after the Maidan Coup in 2014. If you look at the election in 2014, you can see that the eastern regions strongly supported the more Russia friendly option, voting against the western puppet. The eastern regions were ok with being part of Ukraine as long as the President was somewhat friendly to Russia. That was the tipping point. To the extent that Russian nationals began settling the region before or after 2014 is not really relevant.

 

[TheTexan]

Monarchy and self determination are mutually exclusive. You do know that tight?

Doesn't have to be mutually exclusive.

But if you do define monarchy in a way that does make it mutually exclusive, then I oppose that form of monarchy. I oppose any form of government that opposes the right to self determination. Pretty much every government claims to uphold that right, so I'm just holding them to their word.

 

[nikcers]

Doesn't have to be mutually exclusive.

But if you do define monarchy in a way that does make it mutually exclusive, then I oppose that form of monarchy. I oppose any form of government that opposes the right to self determination. Pretty much every government claims to uphold that right, so I'm just holding them to their word.

I define Monarchy the way the Founders of the United States did.

When Benjamin Franklin was asked what kind of government America is, a republic or a Monarchy and he replied a republic if you can keep it.

Under a Monarchy you are subjects of the Monarch. There is no self determination.

Our first Civil War, in 1776 there were people who wanted to stay part of the Monarchy mainly because they didn't want to be hanged by the Monarchy for disobeying their rule.

 

[nikcers]

Ya sorry this is not correct.. I took this position into consideration for a while, and have abandoned it.

The Civil War started right after the Maidan Coup in 2014. If you look at the election in 2014, you can see that the eastern regions strongly supported the more Russia friendly option, voting against the western puppet. The eastern regions were ok with being part of Ukraine as long as the President was somewhat friendly to Russia. That was the tipping point. To the extent that Russian nationals began settling the region before or after 2014 is not really relevant.

No the Orange revolution happened a decade before that.

That was when the Russians tried to first overthrow Ukraines government.

 

[TheTexan]

I define Monarchy the way the Founders of the United States did.

When Benjamin Franklin was asked what kind of government America is, a republic or a Monarchy and he replied a republic if you can keep it.

Under a Monarchy you are subjects of the Monarch. There is no self determination.

Our first Civil War, in 1776 there were people who wanted to stay part of the Monarchy mainly because they didn't want to be hanged by the Monarchy for disobeying their rule.

You would have a better leg to stand on, for making the point you're trying to make, if you weren't against secession as a basic right to begin with.

By opposing the right to secede, we are all made subjects of those in power. A republic is not a republic if it does not respect the right to secede. It is a dictatorship no more or less better than the monarchy that you claim to oppose.

It is hypocritical at the highest level, to criticize a monarchy for making subjects of its people, and then refusing the rights of others to make their own decisions on who they want to be ruled by.

Hypocritical and immoral.

 

[nikcers]

You would have a better leg to stand on, for making the point you're trying to make, if you weren't against secession as a basic right to begin with.

By opposing the right to secede, we are all made subjects of those in power. A republic is not a republic if it does not respect the right to secede. It is a dictatorship no more or less better than the monarchy that you claim to oppose.

It is hypocritical at the highest level, to criticize a monarchy for making subjects of its people, and then refusing the rights of others to make their own decisions on who they want to be ruled by.

Hypocritical and immoral.

No I don't think people have a right to own slaves so that's a different argument.

There is no self determination when you are a slave.

A monarchy has a similar relationship. It's a master and slave relationship.

Sure look you can argue your master treats you better in your monarchy but at the end of the day it's the same thing.

At the end of the day that's my basic argument against the confederacy.

 

[TheTexan]

No I don't think people have a right to own slaves so that's a different argument.

There is no self determination when you are a slave.

A monarchy has a similar relationship. It's a master and slave relationship.

Sure look you can argue your master treats you better in your monarchy but at the end of the day it's the same thing.

At the end of the day that's my basic argument against the confederacy.

Yes, that's pretty much my basic premise. That any time someone refuses your right to make your own decisions on who you're ruled by, it's a master and slave relationship.

That's true no matter what a government calls itself. Whether it's a monarchy or a "republic", if you refuse the right to self determination, then you are a slave master and a tyrant.

Holding slaves is morally reprehensible. Refusing the right to secede is morally reprehensible. For all the reasons you just said and more.

 

[nikcers]

Yes, that's pretty much my basic premise. That any time someone refuses your right to make your own decisions on who you're ruled by, it's a master and slave relationship.

That's true no matter what a government calls itself. Whether it's a monarchy or a "republic", if you refuse the right to self determination, then you are a slave master and a tyrant.

Holding slaves is morally reprehensible. Refusing the right to secede is morally reprehensible. For all the reasons you just said and more.

Sure I believe people under a Monarchy have a right to secession.

That's just not how it works when you are a republic.

When you are a republic it's not really secession.

When you are a republic and you don't like your government you can change it. We change our government constantly.

Unless you're just saying your argument is that we aren't a republic. Which is a separate argument altogether.

I'm willing to entertain that argument but absence of evidence that's just entertainment

 

[TheTexan]

No the Orange revolution happened a decade before that.

That was when the Russians tried to first overthrow Ukraines government.

I think you need to re-check your history with that one